"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

Hi Evan!There's a little "reply" icon at the bottom of each message, and if you use it instead of the general "reply" icon that appears at the top and bottom of each page then your message gets a link back to the message you're replying to, and the list of your messages that you get by clicking on your name will tell you who you've replied to and who has replied to you.--Percy

This is just clarification, so I'm reserving my right to moderate this thread. I think that's pretty much what they're supporting. Evolution is believed to proceed in small incremental steps, not giant leaps. The new species of fruit fly will greatly resemble the parent fruit fly species. But how much will the next new species of fruit fly that arises from the previous new species resemble the grandparent species? And after another speciation, how much will that new species resemble the great grandparent species? After a number of cycles of speciation, how much will the latest new species resemble the great great great great... grandparent species? Not much. Will it even still be a fruit fly? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends upon what the particular speciation changes were.While evolution does not posit that cats evolved into dogs or vice versa, it does believe that the accumulation of small changes eventually results in very large changes. It's like taking a long journey by walking. How much will one step change your position from your previous position? Not by much. How about another step? Still not much change. But string enough of these little steps together and you can walk from New York to San Francisco.The usual Creationist objection is that species can change only so much from the parent species, and to stick with the walking analogy, that there are oceans across which you cannot walk. I'd say this is a fair use of the analogy, but the problem for the Creationist then becomes to identify the evolutionary equivalent to the ocean of the analogy. Since no matter how much change a genome has accumulated there is nothing to prevent yet more copying errors during reproduction, no such barrier has yet been identified.--Percy

Hi John,I don't have any comments on the scientific content of your link to the Conner/Ross article, The Unraveling of Starlight and Time, just a side comment on the strange (to me, at least) way some Christians have of always placing God on their side. For example, the Ross/Humphrey article says this: In other words, God knows that Hugh Ross is right and that Russel Humphreys is wrong, and so God made expert counsels available to Humphreys so he could correct his errors, but Humphreys chose to ignore God's counsels.Those of you who follow tennis may have heard of Michael Chang, who won the French Open in 1989 at the age of 16 and is retiring this year. I must confess I found Chang a boring, grinding, tedious player, but even worse were his acceptance speeches during award ceremonies after winning tournament finals. There was always the part where he would attribute victory to the love and guidance of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as if Jesus didn't love or guide his opponent. I never heard Chang speak of what a loss meant. Did Jesus not love or guide him as much that day?Black Muslim boxers do the same thing after a victory. "I give thanks to all powerful Allah for helping me and supporting me in this victory. All glory to Allah." As if Allah decided the defeated opponent just wasn't worthy of support that day.I find the whole idea of "God's on my side and not yours" an incredible conceit, not that Christians think of it in that way. If they gave it a bit more thought they might say something more along the lines of, "I would like to give thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in making this event so enjoyable and rewarding for everyone involved. The love of our Lord is expressed not in terms of victories or defeats, but in the great joy he provides by allowing us to compete at the highest levels."In other words, Hugh Ross might do well to consider other possibilities. Perhaps it is part of God's plan that Humphreys' theories be given wide exposure. Perhaps God is using Humphreys to test Ross's character.--Percy

So now YEC's are denying OEC's creationist status? Interesting.I guess it's one way to eliminate the confused set of disparate viewpoints within Creationism: "You OEC's aren't *true* Creationists."--Percy